"What's Wrong With Hebrew School?"
That's the big question Mindy Schiller asks in the latest issue of "World Jewish Digest" (a publication whose name suggests an international following, but all the advertisers are from the Chicago area, as are all the schools cited in Schiller's article).
The article piqued our interest at work because, well, we're in the Hebrew school business. And in the end I have a number of major concerns.
1. The article asks all the same questions that we've been asking for twenty years, and offers a whole bunch of the same, tired answers. For example:
So, if Hebrew schools aren’t making the grade, what’s the reason?... [A] problem repeatedly expressed by critics of Hebrew school focuses on the teachers. Put simply, most are part-timers looking to earn a little extra money. (Unfortunately, educators say that hiring full-time teachers is something that most Hebrew schools cannot afford.) In fact, the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism estimates that approximately one third of Conservative schools employ a full-time education director. “If you’re working this as a supplementary job, with a supplementary salary, then that means it’s not your main focus,” says Saul Kaiserman, Director of Lifelong Learning at Temple Emanuel in Manhattan. “Even if you have a great, committed, involved teacher, they’ve got other things that are vying for their attention.”
Are you kidding me? Next the World Jewish Digest is going to ask the question, "Why are Jewish communities shrinking?" and they're gonna answer it with, "Well, it turns out that one major factor may be intermarriage."
The article keeps doing this. It sets up Hebrew school as being this giant failing enterprise, offers evidence that is mostly from Jewish adults whose experience reflects the state of Hebrew schools circa 1984, and then offers the same quotes from the same people (Jack Wertheimer and Steven M. Cohen... whoopdeedoo... No offense to those guys -- who are brilliant -- but isn't this just a rehashing of the same stuff they've been saying for years?).
Nothing new to see here.
(The author herself basically admits this when she quotes one source as saying: “The fact that Hebrew schools haven’t been working is old news.”)
2. The article's author takes it as a given that Hebrew schools are failing.
She gives some anecdotal evidence, quotes Wertheimer and Cohen (and their research), then declares, "Hebrew schools aren’t making the grade."
This is ridiculous. All of her evidence is from a handful of Chicago area schools. She doesn't look at programs anywhere else. She doesn't look at truly innovative programs happening right in her own back yard. She doesn't really look at all.
A better-written article would include commentary from people who would say things like, "Yeah... Hebrew schools have been a problem for a long time. But there are a lot of really good Hebrew school programs out there." This article doesn't do that.
3. Halfway through the article, the author gives up her whole entire premise. Wait... let me say that again. Half way through the article, the author suddenly (and without warning, or any indication to the reader that she's even aware she's doing it), the author totally changes direction.
She starts talking about a school at B'nai Tikvah in Deerfield, Ill. that -- wonder of wonders -- doesn't actually suck. As I read this, I'm thinking, "Hey wait a minute. This school isn't exceptional. I know lots and lots of Hebrew schools that are just as good as that one." And then... we get this:
The question is: is B’nai Tikvah representative?
According to JESNA’s Kraus, the answer is yes.
Wait a minute! Didn't she just say that Hebrew schools are broken? Now she's saying that this one excellent school is actually pretty normal, and that lots of schools are doing really great things.
So why did we need this whole long stinking article?
4. The author has a whole section that looks at ways in which new, interesting stuff has to "compete in the marketplace." Then, she talks about CHAI and Mitkadem, and the Conservative movement's educational/curricular initiatives. That's all fine and good. All that curricular stuff is great.
But nowhere does she even consider that new, innovative stuff has been coming out of the for-profit (and the non-movement-affiliated non-profit) world for years now. Are we cold borscht? What about A.R.E. (now part of Behrman, but still), or K'tav? What about the all those non-movement non-profit initiatives? Coming out with curricular "initiatives" (my boss loves to riff on why the word "initiatives" should scare us all) is all fine and good, but it is definitely not a new idea.
Case in point: The author, talking about the problems with Hebrew school curriculum, writes, "Critics cite a holiday-based curriculum that recycles the same topics year in and year out."
If she'd bothered to talk to anyone who actually works in a Hebrew school, she'd know that a few years ago, we released the Whole School Holiday series. The whole idea behind the series is that [a] schools only need to spend about one day per year on most holidays, and [b] kids should learn new, developmentally appropriate things each year. This set of materials offers kids something new to learn (as opposed to a curriculum that "recycles the same topics year in and year out") in every grade.
Anyway... I could go on for a while, but I don't want to take too much time disparaging this article. In the end, if it gets people to talk about Jewish education, then good. I suspect that the World Jewish Digest of Greater Chicago is actually pretty small potatoes, and that the few people who read this blog and then click over to the article will probably triple its readership. But whatever. It was a nice excuse to rant about the fact that Hebrew schools aren't actually all failing. I like talking about that.
Sara and I went to New Orleans last weekend for Ben and Amanda's wedding. Ben and Amanda used to be my roommates.